An old politician has raised what he claims is a moral issue: Morality at mealtime
Unsurprisingly, it seems to be a can/can't, is/isn't playground spat bet wen extreme vegans and blood-thirsty carnivores already.
"I almost ignored this discussion as it did not immediately seem to cover my usual remit, which is trying to identify and support any and all ways to ensure we have a future (aka 'help saving the planet')... pragmatically. But of course it is, in more than most ways, and I guess morally is in there somewhere.
Skipping quickly over finite land space and the ever-growing population it is expected to support, it seems pretty clear to me scientifically, that, per acre, veg is better than meat.
Against this 'fact', is another inconvenient one of nature: we were, to the best of my understanding designed to be omnivores.
So, in time, I see a bit of a do on the horizon, perhaps a tad after 4x4s and cheap flights, where to survive at the maximum numbers the planet can sustain (which will, sadly, have an upper limit no matter what choice of cuisine we are given – it will be fun to see who grabs the mantle of trading in this), it may be necessary to ban or price out certain key elements of our dietary lifestyles. Enjoy.
Solyent Green anyone?"
Monday, January 15, 2007
Soemthing in the air tonight. And every night. And day.
And so, it continues, and deteriorates, as predicted: Flying off the handle
"I rather fear another unnecessary war is now being fought on various fronts: class (cheap flights), urban/country divide (4x4s, car travel, wind turbines), etc, and the only victim is DOING something to improve the future.
Sadly, I have a sense that those from both sides, with short term agendas for career, targets or ratings, are happy to keep fanning the flames. And are rewarded with column inches, speaking engagements in Bali (Carb-con traded, naturally) or a nifty book-shifting, greenwashing or policy-pushing slot on Breakfast TV.
With some professional reasons, I'd do read these pages. I am not sure what % of the 'lite green' average consumer population do.
But when competing politicians, activists and their media shock and awe troops do battle, I wonder how many who might engage turn away from the scrum and prefer to do nothing rather than wade through the fog and mud of a very obscure (little that is green can be black or white) no man's land, unable to get decent bearings because of the distracting artillery exchanges of the chattering classes above?"
"I rather fear another unnecessary war is now being fought on various fronts: class (cheap flights), urban/country divide (4x4s, car travel, wind turbines), etc, and the only victim is DOING something to improve the future.
Sadly, I have a sense that those from both sides, with short term agendas for career, targets or ratings, are happy to keep fanning the flames. And are rewarded with column inches, speaking engagements in Bali (Carb-con traded, naturally) or a nifty book-shifting, greenwashing or policy-pushing slot on Breakfast TV.
With some professional reasons, I'd do read these pages. I am not sure what % of the 'lite green' average consumer population do.
But when competing politicians, activists and their media shock and awe troops do battle, I wonder how many who might engage turn away from the scrum and prefer to do nothing rather than wade through the fog and mud of a very obscure (little that is green can be black or white) no man's land, unable to get decent bearings because of the distracting artillery exchanges of the chattering classes above?"
All the news that's fit to print
What goes around, comes around.
A nice pass on that I, in turn, pass on (and will try and live by): Do you follow these journalistic guidelines?
"And I, in turn, thank you.
Though not a trained, or professional journalist (whatever such animals may be), I do report on things in my blog.
And despite much online being the Wild West of news and opinion, with more than its fair share of cowboys, I choose to believe that those who 'hew close to the line, but let the chips fall where they may' will gain a respect, trust... and an audience."
A nice pass on that I, in turn, pass on (and will try and live by): Do you follow these journalistic guidelines?
"And I, in turn, thank you.
Though not a trained, or professional journalist (whatever such animals may be), I do report on things in my blog.
And despite much online being the Wild West of news and opinion, with more than its fair share of cowboys, I choose to believe that those who 'hew close to the line, but let the chips fall where they may' will gain a respect, trust... and an audience."
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Time to dig up Voltaire... again
There more than a few words I see or hear that now seem to set off various twitches. One near the top is 'activist'. I am not too sure what it means, but it seems to describe someone who cares a lot about an issue (fair enough), wants to do something about it (also fair), tends to try and do something (laudable, depending) and... seems to think that they have a god-given right to impose their views on other folk as the only course of truth, justice and the 'ist' way. The latter can lead to me getting twitchy.
The BNP is, as far as I am aware, a legitimate (at least in legal terms) political party. So, if you share their views, you can vote for it, vote against it and/or join it.
Like so much in politics, I am uncomfortable with broad brush-strokes, but on balance they don't seem like my kind of people, so I won't be voting for them. But, and here's the M. Voltaire bit, I will defend with my life your right to do so if that's your fancy.
Hence this - Activists taunt the BNP ballerina - did not go down well at all with me (as reported), and if anything left me less impressed with the cause of the 'activists' than the one they are so set against.
As to talks of bans and the like, I'd say you can make a personal stand in support of your views, but when the pols and grants bodies get involved on 'our' behalves, that is a can of worms no one should be considering. 'Nazi' is a term that can apply - if usually inaccurately, but often successfully by the cynical and opportunistic - in many directions.
A bit like much in the environmental world. See, it did have a point for these pages.
The BNP is, as far as I am aware, a legitimate (at least in legal terms) political party. So, if you share their views, you can vote for it, vote against it and/or join it.
Like so much in politics, I am uncomfortable with broad brush-strokes, but on balance they don't seem like my kind of people, so I won't be voting for them. But, and here's the M. Voltaire bit, I will defend with my life your right to do so if that's your fancy.
Hence this - Activists taunt the BNP ballerina - did not go down well at all with me (as reported), and if anything left me less impressed with the cause of the 'activists' than the one they are so set against.
As to talks of bans and the like, I'd say you can make a personal stand in support of your views, but when the pols and grants bodies get involved on 'our' behalves, that is a can of worms no one should be considering. 'Nazi' is a term that can apply - if usually inaccurately, but often successfully by the cynical and opportunistic - in many directions.
A bit like much in the environmental world. See, it did have a point for these pages.
Bias Because Can?
OK, needs work. You do better.
I found this article - If the BBC is so good, we will give it money, and the facts within it, interesting, especially in light of my dealing with some aspects of the empire.
I found this article - If the BBC is so good, we will give it money, and the facts within it, interesting, especially in light of my dealing with some aspects of the empire.
More Mea Culpas
I hope I am being consistent in my reporting, and try to pass on news upon which I comment with a suitable amount of 'as read'.
I'm sure some references will follow to add to this later, but again as I watch the BBC I have to qualify something I blogged on earlier.
It would appear that a small glimmer of agreement between me and Mr. Leary of RyanAir may have been premature. I thought he was making worthy stand against retroactive taxation on behalf of his customers. Er... it seems not.
In fact, with the farce that is the imposition of this tax, he's gone from being what I thought was one of the good guys to a true black hat, customer service wise. He's going to turn folk away at the desk.
No one is coming out of this well.
Not even the financial community. It seems that the travel and hospitality industries are legally allowed to sneak back into even your credit card accounts without asking to make up such tariff differences. This of course could push you into further handling costs and OD charges through no fault of your own.
Nil points.
I'm sure some references will follow to add to this later, but again as I watch the BBC I have to qualify something I blogged on earlier.
It would appear that a small glimmer of agreement between me and Mr. Leary of RyanAir may have been premature. I thought he was making worthy stand against retroactive taxation on behalf of his customers. Er... it seems not.
In fact, with the farce that is the imposition of this tax, he's gone from being what I thought was one of the good guys to a true black hat, customer service wise. He's going to turn folk away at the desk.
No one is coming out of this well.
Not even the financial community. It seems that the travel and hospitality industries are legally allowed to sneak back into even your credit card accounts without asking to make up such tariff differences. This of course could push you into further handling costs and OD charges through no fault of your own.
Nil points.
Shock - Politician Answers Question(ish)
A short while ago I blogged on a story that the Government was 'planning' to raise council bands for DIY improvements, including environmentally beneficial ones. I wasn't keen.
This morning I am watching TV and a Minister - Phil Willis - has been asked a straight question as to the accuracy of this, and he said 'NO'. Clear enough, and I'm happy to pass it on.
There was, of course, an odd exchange with a suprisingly persistent Breakfast bouffant, where the way was left open to a 'review', which 'we' will all welcome. Hmmmn.
This morning I am watching TV and a Minister - Phil Willis - has been asked a straight question as to the accuracy of this, and he said 'NO'. Clear enough, and I'm happy to pass it on.
There was, of course, an odd exchange with a suprisingly persistent Breakfast bouffant, where the way was left open to a 'review', which 'we' will all welcome. Hmmmn.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Some are more equal
Maybe you can help me? What is a lobbyist? I ask because this post got me to wondering.
'I have sympathy, as even in the delicate groves of enviro e-academe, you can end up with some rather disconcerting equivalents of G.Bush's 'bring it on'. Especially prevalent where one uses humour, logic and facts to successfully counter (and show-up, wherein may lie the problem), bias, agendas, hissy-fits and hype. Speaking of which, you are right to ponder one's contribution to 'no such thing as bad publicity', but logically staying silent is not an option should one be concerned that all good persons (ok, I'm a PC-brigade coward) do nothing.
In one rather nasty incident recently, I found myself pulling out of a deteriorating online 'debate' with an 'Anon' (who knew who I was when I did not know them) when they said the next time the 'gloves were coming off' and they 'would get into the gutter'. I have since wondered whether, at risk of sounding like a schoolyard wimp, that was worth taking further with the Forum host at least, if not further. Surely what you describe above could be deemed a threat of assault?
As a pure aside, and bearing in mind my area of specialisation, I was interested in your use of the word 'lobby', as it has cropped up a lot, like with Tony 'D2AID2AIS' (don't do as I do, do as I say) Blair's holiday flip-flops on airlines and travel. Thanks to a Green MEP press release I read a government Minister is frustrated he can't do anything because of 'the power of the air lobby'!
I know it has its origins in meeting out of Chambers or some such, and hence doubtless originated here, but until now I had it as a US-based phenomenon and didn't really pay it much heed. No longer. These guys are unelected yet shaping my future.
But what is it? Far as I can gather it's a guy paid a lot by some other guys to whisper into a guy with a vote's ear to swing their way. So far, so open to corruption. But in the case of people not open to a bung, which I presume includes HMG and its officers, how is it any more powerful than 'putting one's point across'. Which is fine, unless it gets more sinister and drifts into areas of undue influence.
If we're talking 'or else' then surely it is illegal, he said naively, having watched Judge John Deed last night.'
'I have sympathy, as even in the delicate groves of enviro e-academe, you can end up with some rather disconcerting equivalents of G.Bush's 'bring it on'. Especially prevalent where one uses humour, logic and facts to successfully counter (and show-up, wherein may lie the problem), bias, agendas, hissy-fits and hype. Speaking of which, you are right to ponder one's contribution to 'no such thing as bad publicity', but logically staying silent is not an option should one be concerned that all good persons (ok, I'm a PC-brigade coward) do nothing.
In one rather nasty incident recently, I found myself pulling out of a deteriorating online 'debate' with an 'Anon' (who knew who I was when I did not know them) when they said the next time the 'gloves were coming off' and they 'would get into the gutter'. I have since wondered whether, at risk of sounding like a schoolyard wimp, that was worth taking further with the Forum host at least, if not further. Surely what you describe above could be deemed a threat of assault?
As a pure aside, and bearing in mind my area of specialisation, I was interested in your use of the word 'lobby', as it has cropped up a lot, like with Tony 'D2AID2AIS' (don't do as I do, do as I say) Blair's holiday flip-flops on airlines and travel. Thanks to a Green MEP press release I read a government Minister is frustrated he can't do anything because of 'the power of the air lobby'!
I know it has its origins in meeting out of Chambers or some such, and hence doubtless originated here, but until now I had it as a US-based phenomenon and didn't really pay it much heed. No longer. These guys are unelected yet shaping my future.
But what is it? Far as I can gather it's a guy paid a lot by some other guys to whisper into a guy with a vote's ear to swing their way. So far, so open to corruption. But in the case of people not open to a bung, which I presume includes HMG and its officers, how is it any more powerful than 'putting one's point across'. Which is fine, unless it gets more sinister and drifts into areas of undue influence.
If we're talking 'or else' then surely it is illegal, he said naively, having watched Judge John Deed last night.'
Physician, Green Thyself
Another forward - NHS gets green support - from Dave of Solarventi, with the comment 'Perhaps I’m becoming overly cynical but I can’t help suspecting that most of this nice tranche of cash will disappear into the NHS whirlpool never to be seen again or it will be wasted on stupid ideas like putting a mini wind turbine on every ward.'
Well, having noted the recent coverage (see previous blog) on the NHS and how it handles health matters, a degree of cynicism on how it will blow £100 million in an area it has not expertise in is warranted I'd say.
What worries me most is: "meet environmental targets ", and how these tie in to the more laudable “Saving energy also means cost savings in the long term that trusts can spend on improving patient care.”
We'll leave it at 'The NHS is aiming to meet two key energy efficiency targets..' ... for now.
Well, having noted the recent coverage (see previous blog) on the NHS and how it handles health matters, a degree of cynicism on how it will blow £100 million in an area it has not expertise in is warranted I'd say.
What worries me most is: "meet environmental targets ", and how these tie in to the more laudable “Saving energy also means cost savings in the long term that trusts can spend on improving patient care.”
We'll leave it at 'The NHS is aiming to meet two key energy efficiency targets..' ... for now.
The Pain of Plane is Hard to Explain
Actually it's not hard. All those who have elected themselves to speak on our behalves are plane bonkers: Plane Speaking
'I use these commentary pieces and the replies they provoke (often popping in a few of my own to spice the pot) as one would pan for gold. Sadly, I am having to sift through more and more dross to gain any nuggets of use, as the debate seems to have been hijacked by those from extremely entrenched positions (fair enough, if tedious) who are using this space more to try and knock literary spots off each other, and/or make dubious political points at the expense of reasoned debate (not so fair enough).
From those invited to comment, I'd like to have a sense that the medium is seeking those with some expertise, a fair case and the ability to make it. But what I'm seeing more of (across all media) is the ratings/readers-driven wheeze of getting one extreme to pop in their 2p-worth, and then let loose the hounds from both sides and lick up the blood-money from the crowd that gathers.
So it seems we have a naughties 'loadsamunny' live now, pay-later lad telling greenies they are all kill-joys and, if there is global warming it’s too late/not our fault/not worth worrying about, making the point by slagging off an obviously passionate, but rather unrepresentative (I too find prayer meetings on runways a tad OTT, though on reflection did blog at the time of the Greenpeace/Land Rover chain-ganging that it would be ironic if all the luvvies found their weekend ski-trips halted by disgruntled car workers) and didactic enviro-activist. However his response seems to be to get down from a self-created moral high ground (recently vacated by most of our political estsablishment and even some high profile green elites when practicality met self-interest - conferences to speak at; books to sell. Examples to no longer set. Hypocrisy accusations to fend off) into the gutter to simply trade class, who is backing whom, and new/old money insults with few facts or helpful opinion.
I long ago gave up on Radio 1 when such as Chris Moyles and Sara Cox thought I was more interested in who had dissed whom in The Sun or at the Ivy last night rather than the music. Plus I got older (if not wiser).
Now it's taking place in the environmental world too.
I am trying to run a family and ensure that what we do now works for them, AND can sustain a future for their families.
For that I need reasoned debate, information, solutions or, in the absence of the latter, honesty enough to say we don't know (and to err on my more the green sympathies, the acceptance of the notion that if we don't, maybe siding on caution wouldn't hurt) everything and that it would be way better to get on and do worthwhile things rather than talk, or worse divide and rule out anything by getting into camps, and denying opposing views with abuse and swapping tirades.
There is a vast, disenfranchised majority out there who I reckon is finding this all very unhelpful, which is putting them off engaging. Sadly this serves the deniers more than those of us who would seek to engage positively and pragmatically. For instance, frankly, having had several summers in the UK, I’m up for a bit of sun, sand and sea I can get more than a toe into. Now, how about those train fares to somewhere the kids won't get chundered on by a £50k+ hen-nighter who can't afford BA, or WAG off her LearJet with a travel and showbiz journalist in tow....'
I could have had some sympathy with what this guy is trying to do, if not the way he's trying to do it. His defence here shows him no better than the rest, and IMHO, hurting the cause of getting to rational solutions.
'I use these commentary pieces and the replies they provoke (often popping in a few of my own to spice the pot) as one would pan for gold. Sadly, I am having to sift through more and more dross to gain any nuggets of use, as the debate seems to have been hijacked by those from extremely entrenched positions (fair enough, if tedious) who are using this space more to try and knock literary spots off each other, and/or make dubious political points at the expense of reasoned debate (not so fair enough).
From those invited to comment, I'd like to have a sense that the medium is seeking those with some expertise, a fair case and the ability to make it. But what I'm seeing more of (across all media) is the ratings/readers-driven wheeze of getting one extreme to pop in their 2p-worth, and then let loose the hounds from both sides and lick up the blood-money from the crowd that gathers.
So it seems we have a naughties 'loadsamunny' live now, pay-later lad telling greenies they are all kill-joys and, if there is global warming it’s too late/not our fault/not worth worrying about, making the point by slagging off an obviously passionate, but rather unrepresentative (I too find prayer meetings on runways a tad OTT, though on reflection did blog at the time of the Greenpeace/Land Rover chain-ganging that it would be ironic if all the luvvies found their weekend ski-trips halted by disgruntled car workers) and didactic enviro-activist. However his response seems to be to get down from a self-created moral high ground (recently vacated by most of our political estsablishment and even some high profile green elites when practicality met self-interest - conferences to speak at; books to sell. Examples to no longer set. Hypocrisy accusations to fend off) into the gutter to simply trade class, who is backing whom, and new/old money insults with few facts or helpful opinion.
I long ago gave up on Radio 1 when such as Chris Moyles and Sara Cox thought I was more interested in who had dissed whom in The Sun or at the Ivy last night rather than the music. Plus I got older (if not wiser).
Now it's taking place in the environmental world too.
I am trying to run a family and ensure that what we do now works for them, AND can sustain a future for their families.
For that I need reasoned debate, information, solutions or, in the absence of the latter, honesty enough to say we don't know (and to err on my more the green sympathies, the acceptance of the notion that if we don't, maybe siding on caution wouldn't hurt) everything and that it would be way better to get on and do worthwhile things rather than talk, or worse divide and rule out anything by getting into camps, and denying opposing views with abuse and swapping tirades.
There is a vast, disenfranchised majority out there who I reckon is finding this all very unhelpful, which is putting them off engaging. Sadly this serves the deniers more than those of us who would seek to engage positively and pragmatically. For instance, frankly, having had several summers in the UK, I’m up for a bit of sun, sand and sea I can get more than a toe into. Now, how about those train fares to somewhere the kids won't get chundered on by a £50k+ hen-nighter who can't afford BA, or WAG off her LearJet with a travel and showbiz journalist in tow....'
I could have had some sympathy with what this guy is trying to do, if not the way he's trying to do it. His defence here shows him no better than the rest, and IMHO, hurting the cause of getting to rational solutions.
P-EU!
Something* is rotten in this land of.... and it stinks of hypocrisy The Stavros Solution
Our Dear Leader here is bad enough (one comment on the blog about 'stopping driving my Range Rover' when he stops flying), but now it's our unelected variety weighing here.
I don't think it's necessary to have a 4x4 in Chelsea. But I do think 4x4s are a necessary product (try pulling a cow out of a wet field with a Prius, or taking on the Taliban with a G-Wiz), and in any case what, again , is the % they contribute vs. MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS!!!!
Plus the already staked them vs. us camps this has created, fueled by the rampant D2AID2AIS (don't do as I do; do as I say) of the opportunistic numbskulls trying to force it through.
Nil points.
*Thanks to Dave of Solarventi for the forward
Our Dear Leader here is bad enough (one comment on the blog about 'stopping driving my Range Rover' when he stops flying), but now it's our unelected variety weighing here.
I don't think it's necessary to have a 4x4 in Chelsea. But I do think 4x4s are a necessary product (try pulling a cow out of a wet field with a Prius, or taking on the Taliban with a G-Wiz), and in any case what, again , is the % they contribute vs. MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS!!!!
Plus the already staked them vs. us camps this has created, fueled by the rampant D2AID2AIS (don't do as I do; do as I say) of the opportunistic numbskulls trying to force it through.
Nil points.
*Thanks to Dave of Solarventi for the forward
Thursday, January 11, 2007
For whom the wind blows
It may be worth getting in touch with this chap: We're not anti-wind farms - but they should be offshore
"With this issue, I am thirsting for facts, or at least well-informed opinion based on expert and, one presumes, honestly-interpreted knowledge. No one in their right mind would hide the truth just for short-term personal or professional gain, surely.
Thanks to Mr. Constable, I (may) have:
“The Renewables Obligation (RO... costs nearly £1bn a year” (Fact?).
“It fails to distinguish between the relative merits of different renewables, [and] has encouraged underperforming onshore wind turbines in low-wind areas (some less than 10% effective)” (Opinion/Fact?).
“Though of little engineering value, such plants attract speculators because they require smaller capital investment. The result has been to starve high-merit technologies of funding” (Opinion/Fact?).
“The DTI is currently undertaking a major revision to offer more subsidies per unit generated to offshore wind, biomass and tidal technologies. MPs and councillors from all parties are opposing obviously inappropriate applications for onshore wind” (I assume a Fact?).
“Offshore wind... can also provide nearly twice as much electrical energy per unit of capacity as onshore wind” (Fact? Though I wonder about the initial capital costs and hence ROI financially and environmentally)
“Britain's green electricity targets are for the energy produced, not the capacity” (Fact?).
“Large quantities of wind capacity in low-wind regions would generate very little energy, and the targets will still be missed” (Fact?)
Against which, I so far have:
"Dunford's REF has sensible-sounding ideas about renewables. But I am not sure what motivates them promote these." - (A fact and a... question?)
“Yes, let's point fingers at others and make them change their lifestyles. We can sit and watch (and of course, critique)” – (Er, OK)
“... the objection isn't against wind farms per se, just ones that are economically viable. It's HUGELY more expensive to build them offshore, far more so than the added gain in use from the extra wind out there.” (Opinion, but a well taken point. However, when it comes to the viability, economically and environmentally, if they are not turning because the wind isn’t blowing there, what are the relative values of land-based vs. offshore? I need facts!!!)"
"With this issue, I am thirsting for facts, or at least well-informed opinion based on expert and, one presumes, honestly-interpreted knowledge. No one in their right mind would hide the truth just for short-term personal or professional gain, surely.
Thanks to Mr. Constable, I (may) have:
“The Renewables Obligation (RO... costs nearly £1bn a year” (Fact?).
“It fails to distinguish between the relative merits of different renewables, [and] has encouraged underperforming onshore wind turbines in low-wind areas (some less than 10% effective)” (Opinion/Fact?).
“Though of little engineering value, such plants attract speculators because they require smaller capital investment. The result has been to starve high-merit technologies of funding” (Opinion/Fact?).
“The DTI is currently undertaking a major revision to offer more subsidies per unit generated to offshore wind, biomass and tidal technologies. MPs and councillors from all parties are opposing obviously inappropriate applications for onshore wind” (I assume a Fact?).
“Offshore wind... can also provide nearly twice as much electrical energy per unit of capacity as onshore wind” (Fact? Though I wonder about the initial capital costs and hence ROI financially and environmentally)
“Britain's green electricity targets are for the energy produced, not the capacity” (Fact?).
“Large quantities of wind capacity in low-wind regions would generate very little energy, and the targets will still be missed” (Fact?)
Against which, I so far have:
"Dunford's REF has sensible-sounding ideas about renewables. But I am not sure what motivates them promote these." - (A fact and a... question?)
“Yes, let's point fingers at others and make them change their lifestyles. We can sit and watch (and of course, critique)” – (Er, OK)
“... the objection isn't against wind farms per se, just ones that are economically viable. It's HUGELY more expensive to build them offshore, far more so than the added gain in use from the extra wind out there.” (Opinion, but a well taken point. However, when it comes to the viability, economically and environmentally, if they are not turning because the wind isn’t blowing there, what are the relative values of land-based vs. offshore? I need facts!!!)"
Bovicide, he wrote
Boris Johnson is many things. He is an MP, a skilled orator and even more potent scribe. He is also a celebrity, so what he says matters, and in this day and age more than people who know what they are talking about. If he did not have the image he has, and will never shake, I think he would be taken very seriously. Like Jeremy Clarkson, he is intelligent, well-informed and knows how to put a case. And with humour, making it all the more easy to read and be swayed by. As he does here: If you want to be green – kill a cow
I just feel some challenge, and balance, is in order, and perhaps better than the usual extremes that get attracted... and printed.
"Suitably disconcerted by, amongst other things, Stern the Mighty (though his recent performance against an almost diffident Paxo was so squirmingly unconvincing even I felt like ordering a Humvee on the spot), with typical if worryingly disarming humour you have raised some interesting points.
I know these are columns and blogs, and hence should be taken with a pinch of salt factually, but in the spirit if trying to come to some kind of objective informed notions between the polar opposites that inevitably get attracted (I just looked, and inside this pink-skinned eco-worrier there is indeed red, the not of the political persuasion), I'd be grateful to have a bit more by way of substantiation on the following:
"So I dialled up the eco-websites and ... the whole thing turns out to be a complete nonsense."
Along with this:
"Far from soaking up your share of CO2, most trees in non-tropical areas are thought to trap heat and thereby increase global warming."
I'd really like to know. For what it's worth I am very dubious about any Carb-con dis-credited trading schemes put forward by the EU, Tony 'Don't Do As I Do', his mate at the Treasury and all those in the City who have joined with them in some short-term (in political and financial terms) Devil's pact to part us from our cash to fund their pension plan.
I must say I am truly intrigued with Simon's post about pre-Kyoto Chinese construct-to-destruct activity. That smacks of being entirely too possible in this meeting targets vs. making real achievements world we live in... for now."
I just feel some challenge, and balance, is in order, and perhaps better than the usual extremes that get attracted... and printed.
"Suitably disconcerted by, amongst other things, Stern the Mighty (though his recent performance against an almost diffident Paxo was so squirmingly unconvincing even I felt like ordering a Humvee on the spot), with typical if worryingly disarming humour you have raised some interesting points.
I know these are columns and blogs, and hence should be taken with a pinch of salt factually, but in the spirit if trying to come to some kind of objective informed notions between the polar opposites that inevitably get attracted (I just looked, and inside this pink-skinned eco-worrier there is indeed red, the not of the political persuasion), I'd be grateful to have a bit more by way of substantiation on the following:
"So I dialled up the eco-websites and ... the whole thing turns out to be a complete nonsense."
Along with this:
"Far from soaking up your share of CO2, most trees in non-tropical areas are thought to trap heat and thereby increase global warming."
I'd really like to know. For what it's worth I am very dubious about any Carb-con dis-credited trading schemes put forward by the EU, Tony 'Don't Do As I Do', his mate at the Treasury and all those in the City who have joined with them in some short-term (in political and financial terms) Devil's pact to part us from our cash to fund their pension plan.
I must say I am truly intrigued with Simon's post about pre-Kyoto Chinese construct-to-destruct activity. That smacks of being entirely too possible in this meeting targets vs. making real achievements world we live in... for now."
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
It ain't what you say. It's where you say it.
I was going to bolt this on to the blog earlier about the hoo-haa coverage following Dear Leader's 'I'm not going to stop flying, but you should' inspirational post-holiday, pre-lecture circuit speech. But I think it deserves its own post.
Newsnight weighed in last night, and I've just watched it online ( a very fine facility I must say).
First up we had the 'we're all doomed' with a junior reporter who was allowed as far as Kew, with suitable irony about the planes flying overhead noted, along with a comment about complaints made that they could have sited it better (in 18whenever.. ha-ha!).
Then we had big-gun Jezza being very polite (I thought) to Lord Stern, who even so managed to look very uncomfortable AND say nothing, despite the guy who commissioned him shooting most of what he'd come up with recently down in flames (a few mixed flying metaphors in there, sorry).
Then we had a senior reporter, Roger Harrabin, do a very interesting Tomorrow's World-styly (it's coming back... yaaaay!) report on inventions to get rid of, reusee and all round make more of our re:sources. Solar ovens in India. PVs in California. Gas storage in Algeria. Eco-architecture in Watford. Cloud sprays in Scotland.
And some good points were made. One being - and I support the Governemnt bod saying it, and who was none too keen on funding the guy who came up with a notion that was on the latter basis: 'it's better to cut not mask'.
But....
I recently saw a BBC 'ad' that was making the claim that Aunty had more folk on the ground in more places than anyone.
So why, in heaven's name, was it necessary to fly Mr. H (and crew?) to India, and Algeria (at least, that I could see) to stand next to a bit of kit for 30 seconds' worth of vox-pop?
I know it's all in the name of entertainment, but really, didn't this just shoot the earlier pieces in the foot a bit?
Newsnight weighed in last night, and I've just watched it online ( a very fine facility I must say).
First up we had the 'we're all doomed' with a junior reporter who was allowed as far as Kew, with suitable irony about the planes flying overhead noted, along with a comment about complaints made that they could have sited it better (in 18whenever.. ha-ha!).
Then we had big-gun Jezza being very polite (I thought) to Lord Stern, who even so managed to look very uncomfortable AND say nothing, despite the guy who commissioned him shooting most of what he'd come up with recently down in flames (a few mixed flying metaphors in there, sorry).
Then we had a senior reporter, Roger Harrabin, do a very interesting Tomorrow's World-styly (it's coming back... yaaaay!) report on inventions to get rid of, reusee and all round make more of our re:sources. Solar ovens in India. PVs in California. Gas storage in Algeria. Eco-architecture in Watford. Cloud sprays in Scotland.
And some good points were made. One being - and I support the Governemnt bod saying it, and who was none too keen on funding the guy who came up with a notion that was on the latter basis: 'it's better to cut not mask'.
But....
I recently saw a BBC 'ad' that was making the claim that Aunty had more folk on the ground in more places than anyone.
So why, in heaven's name, was it necessary to fly Mr. H (and crew?) to India, and Algeria (at least, that I could see) to stand next to a bit of kit for 30 seconds' worth of vox-pop?
I know it's all in the name of entertainment, but really, didn't this just shoot the earlier pieces in the foot a bit?
How Un-PC can I be?
As I stare at the screen of my Mac, as we are setting examples this is not comforting reading: Greenpeace slams Apple’s lack of ‘green’ credentials
But then as I look across at the Windows effort we have and think of this 'Dell unveils 'plant a tree for me', and I feel... better. Shame it's in the US and I can't raise a peep from the UK PR guys.
Also, is slamming a fir in the firmament really doing much? I have my doubts. It has a slight whiff of something green, and it ain't pine essence.
But then as I look across at the Windows effort we have and think of this 'Dell unveils 'plant a tree for me', and I feel... better. Shame it's in the US and I can't raise a peep from the UK PR guys.
Also, is slamming a fir in the firmament really doing much? I have my doubts. It has a slight whiff of something green, and it ain't pine essence.
DMlemma for the pols, too
The other day I got a leaflet through my door from the Lib Dems.
As it was in Pol-speek and Am-design I didn't even bother reading or looking at it much, as there were pictures of the MP doing nothing but gurn in front of a thing. But I must now seek it out in the bin.
Because of this: LibDem 'breaks party waste policy'
I may, once, have gone on a list, but it would have had an e-mail if given the option. Now how how do I find out?
As they said on Rowan & Martin's Laugh-in... 'Interesting, but..'
As it was in Pol-speek and Am-design I didn't even bother reading or looking at it much, as there were pictures of the MP doing nothing but gurn in front of a thing. But I must now seek it out in the bin.
Because of this: LibDem 'breaks party waste policy'
I may, once, have gone on a list, but it would have had an e-mail if given the option. Now how how do I find out?
As they said on Rowan & Martin's Laugh-in... 'Interesting, but..'
Oh, B*gnor!
A rich seam:
Indy - Blair tries to offset fury over flights policy
An open letter to the prime minister
Newsdesk notes for Tuesday January 9
Blair flies in to a flood of protest
Blair, Monday: I'm not offsetting carbon. Blair, yesterday: Er, I've had a rethink
The top 10 political hypocrites
I replied to one:
'I pop what I write here on my blog on http://www.junkk.com (always worth pitching a mention), so even though no one is going to ever wade through 100+ posts (I have to say I gave up halfway) to read it, it's worth doing anyway.
Most of all I see here the hypocrisy mantra being chanted, both at TB and GM, in almost equal measure.
Fair enough, actually. Speaking personally, I doubt I'll be flying much over the next few years, mainly because I have too much to do here and can't afford it anyway. That would make me a fairly good example setter, should I take it upon myself to tell other folk what to do, or worse try and scold them for not doing what I say (if not do). For obvious reasons, I try no to.
But I have to say, as an ordinary Joe, if the government and eco-media* can't lead by example, it's hard to see why anyone else should.
As to the rest, as my 10-year-olds now seem to have appreciated: 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Or, for that matter, secure the future.
*I merely note, but still find it a tad ironic, that in the blog headed 'Blair flies in to a flood of protest' http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1986570,00.html, there seems to be a lovely (in rotation) ad for a Guardian travel promo, and I don't think the beach is at Bognor.'
Indy - Blair tries to offset fury over flights policy
An open letter to the prime minister
Newsdesk notes for Tuesday January 9
Blair flies in to a flood of protest
Blair, Monday: I'm not offsetting carbon. Blair, yesterday: Er, I've had a rethink
The top 10 political hypocrites
I replied to one:
'I pop what I write here on my blog on http://www.junkk.com (always worth pitching a mention), so even though no one is going to ever wade through 100+ posts (I have to say I gave up halfway) to read it, it's worth doing anyway.
Most of all I see here the hypocrisy mantra being chanted, both at TB and GM, in almost equal measure.
Fair enough, actually. Speaking personally, I doubt I'll be flying much over the next few years, mainly because I have too much to do here and can't afford it anyway. That would make me a fairly good example setter, should I take it upon myself to tell other folk what to do, or worse try and scold them for not doing what I say (if not do). For obvious reasons, I try no to.
But I have to say, as an ordinary Joe, if the government and eco-media* can't lead by example, it's hard to see why anyone else should.
As to the rest, as my 10-year-olds now seem to have appreciated: 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Or, for that matter, secure the future.
*I merely note, but still find it a tad ironic, that in the blog headed 'Blair flies in to a flood of protest' http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1986570,00.html, there seems to be a lovely (in rotation) ad for a Guardian travel promo, and I don't think the beach is at Bognor.'
Not so full of beans
This is not, on the face of it, anything to do with Junkk's area, but as it does encapsulate a political and management culture in this country that certainly exists with matters environmental, I feel it's worth including.
I watched a very depressing programme, where a biz guru tried to fix the NHS. It was partly depressing that such a flip notion was taken seriously by so many (he managed a few turnarounds... nothing like a full film crew to swing that! Try mano-a-mano to a dude that is gold-plated and unfireable) in the pursuit of ratings, but mainly because in amonst the nonsense and editing a lot was laid bare. And it wasn't pretty.
A guru close to despair
I felt the urge to pitch in:
‘Daily Mail reader would know what to conclude from the programme.’
‘For the Guardian reader, it's harder. ‘
I am in a quandary: how to react? I read both. And the Times. And the Indy. Often the Sun, Mirror, too. Not because I enjoy them particularly, and especially not because I feel I will be informed objectively by any of them.
But there is the slim hope that, as with blogs such as this and the replies they garner, I may acquire enough information to make a reasoned judgement on an issue.
Of course, like most, in this case I also have personal experience to fall back on as well. And I dread taking my Mum to hospital today as a consequence (case in point: two posters in the waiting room. One says 'Help us by asking a friend or relative to bring you'. The other says 'Priority is given to those using hospital transport'). If there was an alternative I'd use it.
I come from the private sector. All I know is that if what you can earn is based on fewer and fewer people who provide a function the 'customer' pays for, the solution is not, at best, piling on a huge % more to 'manage' or ‘administer’ them, or at worst cut them back to fund ever more managers/administrators.
If you lose the bean makers and stop making beans, there is nothing left to count... or report on... or meet targets with.
And then they will stop voting for you as well.'
I watched a very depressing programme, where a biz guru tried to fix the NHS. It was partly depressing that such a flip notion was taken seriously by so many (he managed a few turnarounds... nothing like a full film crew to swing that! Try mano-a-mano to a dude that is gold-plated and unfireable) in the pursuit of ratings, but mainly because in amonst the nonsense and editing a lot was laid bare. And it wasn't pretty.
A guru close to despair
I felt the urge to pitch in:
‘Daily Mail reader would know what to conclude from the programme.’
‘For the Guardian reader, it's harder. ‘
I am in a quandary: how to react? I read both. And the Times. And the Indy. Often the Sun, Mirror, too. Not because I enjoy them particularly, and especially not because I feel I will be informed objectively by any of them.
But there is the slim hope that, as with blogs such as this and the replies they garner, I may acquire enough information to make a reasoned judgement on an issue.
Of course, like most, in this case I also have personal experience to fall back on as well. And I dread taking my Mum to hospital today as a consequence (case in point: two posters in the waiting room. One says 'Help us by asking a friend or relative to bring you'. The other says 'Priority is given to those using hospital transport'). If there was an alternative I'd use it.
I come from the private sector. All I know is that if what you can earn is based on fewer and fewer people who provide a function the 'customer' pays for, the solution is not, at best, piling on a huge % more to 'manage' or ‘administer’ them, or at worst cut them back to fund ever more managers/administrators.
If you lose the bean makers and stop making beans, there is nothing left to count... or report on... or meet targets with.
And then they will stop voting for you as well.'
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Nice pack. Shame about what's in it.
An archive clipping, but topical.I actually cut it out because of the nifty packs on show, a few of which already grace our site.
But sadly, it seems those in the UK are less up-front about the pipe-clogger contents when compared to our US cousins.
Still, it all tastes nice and we can make stuff out of them. Ashes conatiners?
Shame if your bin caught fire, squire
As we're on the topic (see last post) of self-interest, I note this: Councils want to charge you for rubbish
Way-hey! This can only serve any initiative designed to help you put less in your bin, like a certain reuse .com I could mention. Junkk.com.
But, as per the last post again, I hope they have figured out the difference between penalty and incentive is by then.
There's also the small matter of how this will all be measured, charged and policed, but I reckon we're about due for some further breaches of justice by now, combined with the mass hiring of several more layers of Big Brother index-linked, gold-plated bloodsucking.
Way-hey! This can only serve any initiative designed to help you put less in your bin, like a certain reuse .com I could mention. Junkk.com.
But, as per the last post again, I hope they have figured out the difference between penalty and incentive is by then.
There's also the small matter of how this will all be measured, charged and policed, but I reckon we're about due for some further breaches of justice by now, combined with the mass hiring of several more layers of Big Brother index-linked, gold-plated bloodsucking.
Airbor(n)e
There's so much flying (pun intended) around on this topic it's hard to know how to keep up.
I started on it a wee while ago, but I think a new post is in order, this time devoted to the guy in charge:
BBC - Blair defends long-haul holidays
Guardian - Carry on flying, says Blair - science will save the planet
Indy - Blair says no politician would ban cheap flights
Telegraph - I'll recycle but I won't give up my long-haul holidays, says Blair
First up, he's right (shock horror): no pol is going to try and ban cheap hols. Therein lies a problem. I don't think anyone is saying that, but something erring on curbing the gasses is needed, and if they only way to get there is in gassy plane...
However, that's as far as I'll cut him some slack.
This is a guy who, as of next year, needs/wants to fly around the world on speaking tours to try and cover the mortgage back home. As many (have to) do. As to the family getting in a snit if they can't build their sandcastles at least 8,000 miles away, well... many of us don't have the option in the first place.
But at least he'll be popping the duty-free rum bottles in the right bin to compensate.
Michael O'Leary and the airlines must be wetting themselves laughing.
Unlike the quoted 'enviro-groups', I'm a bit more than disappointed. This governement is not joined up, or a mob that leads or even feels the need to lead by example. And for that alone they should be made example of come the next election. Please God I can find someone to vote for by then.
ps: I'm not sure if it's telling, but when he says taxing people more is a way to incentivise them I see a bit of a flaw in reasoning. I'm hoping he meant that you encourage with reward and disincentivise with penalties. But they way his government is going I think it's not confusion but policy.
I started on it a wee while ago, but I think a new post is in order, this time devoted to the guy in charge:
BBC - Blair defends long-haul holidays
Guardian - Carry on flying, says Blair - science will save the planet
Indy - Blair says no politician would ban cheap flights
Telegraph - I'll recycle but I won't give up my long-haul holidays, says Blair
First up, he's right (shock horror): no pol is going to try and ban cheap hols. Therein lies a problem. I don't think anyone is saying that, but something erring on curbing the gasses is needed, and if they only way to get there is in gassy plane...
However, that's as far as I'll cut him some slack.
This is a guy who, as of next year, needs/wants to fly around the world on speaking tours to try and cover the mortgage back home. As many (have to) do. As to the family getting in a snit if they can't build their sandcastles at least 8,000 miles away, well... many of us don't have the option in the first place.
But at least he'll be popping the duty-free rum bottles in the right bin to compensate.
Michael O'Leary and the airlines must be wetting themselves laughing.
Unlike the quoted 'enviro-groups', I'm a bit more than disappointed. This governement is not joined up, or a mob that leads or even feels the need to lead by example. And for that alone they should be made example of come the next election. Please God I can find someone to vote for by then.
ps: I'm not sure if it's telling, but when he says taxing people more is a way to incentivise them I see a bit of a flaw in reasoning. I'm hoping he meant that you encourage with reward and disincentivise with penalties. But they way his government is going I think it's not confusion but policy.
We're often so busy talking we don't stop to listen
With the comment 'Your Kalahari bushman ... (well, Kenyan anyway) has made it into the news this morning.', Dave of Solarventi has sent this in:
How richest fuel global warming - but poorest suffer most from it
'Nuff said?
How richest fuel global warming - but poorest suffer most from it
'Nuff said?
And the vegetables, Ma'am?
Anyone remember Spitting Image's most famous put down of a government where no one moved unless the boss said so?
David Miliband's declaration that large numbers of voters buy organic food as a 'lifestyle' choice is a significant self-inflicted injury.
"Planes, trains... and aubergines!
When something like this is announced, I immediately look for the agenda behind the back-story.
But for once I am damned if I can find it... yet. Doubtless it will soon become clear once the first punt has seeded, settled in and had a chance to die down.
One thing is for sure, different aspects of government, and the talking heads at the top/in charge (if that's what they are), don't seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet at present, especially across the eco-enviro spectrum."
David Miliband's declaration that large numbers of voters buy organic food as a 'lifestyle' choice is a significant self-inflicted injury.
"Planes, trains... and aubergines!
When something like this is announced, I immediately look for the agenda behind the back-story.
But for once I am damned if I can find it... yet. Doubtless it will soon become clear once the first punt has seeded, settled in and had a chance to die down.
One thing is for sure, different aspects of government, and the talking heads at the top/in charge (if that's what they are), don't seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet at present, especially across the eco-enviro spectrum."
A silly question deserves a SUPERB answer!
'If you spend more than four hours a day travelling to work, have you got a life?'
"Well, yes. Whether it is the life you want, is another matter.
Some... most of us to not have a choice in the matter.
I write this lucky enough, for now, to work from home. I dread the occasions when I have to travel, no matter the slight benefits of having a few hours to read guilt-free if I'm on the train, or listening to the radio en route, more guiltily, if I am car-borne trading."
I of course refer to that last play on words: car-borne trading. Genius (immodestly). You heard it here first.
"Well, yes. Whether it is the life you want, is another matter.
Some... most of us to not have a choice in the matter.
I write this lucky enough, for now, to work from home. I dread the occasions when I have to travel, no matter the slight benefits of having a few hours to read guilt-free if I'm on the train, or listening to the radio en route, more guiltily, if I am car-borne trading."
I of course refer to that last play on words: car-borne trading. Genius (immodestly). You heard it here first.
Monday, January 08, 2007
On your Marx, get set... stop.
I don't think I am a communist. I rather like the idea of being comfortably off (though am having a bit of an epiphany as to how much one really needs if we are to survive as a species - loads of dosh really means loads of desire to blow it on stuff, travel, etc, otherwise one's mattress really is going to bulk up) and get a cold shudder when I see anything with 'not for profit' on it.
However, two pieces in one of my Sunday's had me looking up 'first against the wall when the revolution comes' in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Blowing the bonus
Buddy, can you spare a billion?
I don't have a problem with wealth as such, so long as it is honestly, morally and ethically earned/gained (which rather removes most inherited varieties, at the top end at least, anyway), but I certainly do with any wasteful, obscene misuse of it.
And I really do not like it being pandered to by those who seek to bask in a few moments of being close to it by offering exposure to those with such shallow lives they can't think of anything better to do with their financial good fortune.
However, two pieces in one of my Sunday's had me looking up 'first against the wall when the revolution comes' in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Blowing the bonus
Buddy, can you spare a billion?
I don't have a problem with wealth as such, so long as it is honestly, morally and ethically earned/gained (which rather removes most inherited varieties, at the top end at least, anyway), but I certainly do with any wasteful, obscene misuse of it.
And I really do not like it being pandered to by those who seek to bask in a few moments of being close to it by offering exposure to those with such shallow lives they can't think of anything better to do with their financial good fortune.
Let's never let a silly thing like facts get in the way of a good debate
I keep saying the guy is a genius, so I hope he'll forgive me showing why every so often, especially if I post his URL.
Anyone reading this blog of late will note that I am getting a little frustrated with a load of folk who should know better, and paid a lot more, who go very quiet when I, and others, ask questions requiring a simple, factual answer.
Now I know why.
Parapet. Head. Stick. Over. Ouch. The Sequel.
Well, it is Monday: Flight from reality
'This has been covered elsewhere (including this online resource) quite extensively, and indicates a hot (well, warm, at least globally) topic.
The arguments and comments seem to be falling pretty well as expected, and predicted - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/parapet-head-stick-over-ouch.html
I thank the few here who have posted without rancour but with a legitimate concern to know more to act responsibly, or asked some legitimate questions which I do hope will be answered by those who claim to know (better).
I fear those we could have hoped to cool the pot so we may all sup from it are principally concerned with stirring it whilst fanning the flames."
ADDENDUM:
A view from a Green MEP, currently en rouet to the pokey, apparently (for her views & actions) on Trident: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2811
'This has been covered elsewhere (including this online resource) quite extensively, and indicates a hot (well, warm, at least globally) topic.
The arguments and comments seem to be falling pretty well as expected, and predicted - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/parapet-head-stick-over-ouch.html
I thank the few here who have posted without rancour but with a legitimate concern to know more to act responsibly, or asked some legitimate questions which I do hope will be answered by those who claim to know (better).
I fear those we could have hoped to cool the pot so we may all sup from it are principally concerned with stirring it whilst fanning the flames."
ADDENDUM:
A view from a Green MEP, currently en rouet to the pokey, apparently (for her views & actions) on Trident: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2811
Who cares about the Ashes?
One I thank Dave of Solarventi for passing on: 'Dustbin' UK tops landfill table
Parapet. Head. Stick. Over. Ouch.
It's that kind of day: Guardian
"For some reason I don't often get approved for the Telegraph, but I'd like to share what I wrote to them today - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/martin-in-middle.html - as it's happening here, too.
I am not an eco-Nazi. Nor am I a oil-funded climate-denier. I am just a bloke (one who is trying to raise his kids now AND ensure they have a future) trying to figure this all out to do what's best.
And I am certainly not feeling too well served by government, eco-groups, business, NGOs and even the media. All have an agenda (staying/getting elected, getting funding, getting grants to bestow and ratings/readership respectively) that serves, it seems to me, the environment they claim to serve pretty low on the totem.
I agreed with Mr. Leary in my blog a few days ago. That doesn't make me his lackey. I was simply agreeing with his point that retro-actively back-dating taxes was not on. But before he pops a cork and buys another new 737, I'm afraid there's not much else I can offer him in support. Or a lot of others in favour of ever more, ever-more efficient, ever-more offset and carbonally-traded travel: I really rather think we need to not only slow down, but actually even think about travelling less.
However, if the guys in charge of effecting this equitably, fairly and rationally are those in government (or those in governments worldwide), we have a few slight problem to overcome first.
Trust being first. Faith in abilities next. A sense of vision beyond the next sound-bite or election...
Make that more than a few."
"For some reason I don't often get approved for the Telegraph, but I'd like to share what I wrote to them today - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/martin-in-middle.html - as it's happening here, too.
I am not an eco-Nazi. Nor am I a oil-funded climate-denier. I am just a bloke (one who is trying to raise his kids now AND ensure they have a future) trying to figure this all out to do what's best.
And I am certainly not feeling too well served by government, eco-groups, business, NGOs and even the media. All have an agenda (staying/getting elected, getting funding, getting grants to bestow and ratings/readership respectively) that serves, it seems to me, the environment they claim to serve pretty low on the totem.
I agreed with Mr. Leary in my blog a few days ago. That doesn't make me his lackey. I was simply agreeing with his point that retro-actively back-dating taxes was not on. But before he pops a cork and buys another new 737, I'm afraid there's not much else I can offer him in support. Or a lot of others in favour of ever more, ever-more efficient, ever-more offset and carbonally-traded travel: I really rather think we need to not only slow down, but actually even think about travelling less.
However, if the guys in charge of effecting this equitably, fairly and rationally are those in government (or those in governments worldwide), we have a few slight problem to overcome first.
Trust being first. Faith in abilities next. A sense of vision beyond the next sound-bite or election...
Make that more than a few."
Money makes the world go around
My reply to this: A first-class rip-off
"The planet breathes easier as we speak. Not.
Interesting that the PR airline machine has here decided to go for a fiscal comparison.
There is a lesson in this, however. If our leaders (especially those in capital cities) are sincere in us using the most eco-effective method of travel, it may make sense to make them cost-effective as well, by way of incentive?"
"The planet breathes easier as we speak. Not.
Interesting that the PR airline machine has here decided to go for a fiscal comparison.
There is a lesson in this, however. If our leaders (especially those in capital cities) are sincere in us using the most eco-effective method of travel, it may make sense to make them cost-effective as well, by way of incentive?"
Martin in the Middle
As predicted, and feared, I am seeing eco-issues being stretched to extremes by the various camps with vested interests: If the eco-snobs had their way, none of us would go anywhere
I see our value now in trying to be a voice (hopefully of reason) for the middle ground:
'In the world of green, things are seldom black or white. Unless of course, you are in government, an activist... or the media.
For the rest of us poor slobs, weighing information and exhortation can be less than satisfying.
Things tend only to get published if they are at extremes. Or have extreme solutions.
Hence if you think everything is more tickedy boo than being doomsaid you are a climate denier, and if you think things may being erring on the dodgy and may need some allowances you are an ecosnob.
Here’s a bit of engineering for you. If one person takes a pebble from a dyke it will hold. If they keep on doing it likely will still hold as they are just one. But if they are joined by more and more it will eventually fail. And no technology can plug that gap if the combined efforts of individuals are determined to erode them.
Even those who demand freedoms have a responsibility to themselves, their fellows and the future to adjust their expectations and actions.
It’s a mess. Something has to be done. But what has been, is being and looks like being done doesn’t fill me with much confidence. All I see is battle lines. And while wars get fought little else happens and certainly nothing much positive. Meanwhile those who could be harnessed to help hunker down as the broadside sail overhead.
Maybe we have become too used to mobility, not just socially but also though necessity, especially for business. And here the policy makers have to figure out what they want and facilitate it.
But then the ‘its my right’ brigade need to meet somewhere (I’ll avoid halfway). I can visit my relatives in Singapore by means other than air, just as my Victorian ancestors did. If I am demanding the convenience and time and cost of an airplane that’s another matter. It isn’t the only method.
With an ever expanding and more affluent population, worldwide (China: fifty airports coming soon. They do of course have a child limitation policy to compensate, though it seems the rich can circumvent this. Was it ever thus), what does the author anticipate? Sorry if it takes her a bit longer to get to the opera or pop over to Verbier to catch the snow before it has gone for ever (there’s always a longer haul to Canada), but some poor sods walking across the Kalahari to find water, not factored into the carbon trading scheme, may feel certain restrictions of movement are in order.
Of course the government has seen what’s coming, but if yesterday's report is to believed and their solution is to tax households who add ‘value’ to homes via double glazing then we can see what their motivations and hence use as leaders really is.
Personally, I’d prefer to see about avoiding a Malthusian scenario by assuming that if something didn’t happen once before it won’t again. That’s a bit like jumping off a building and because you land on a truck full of mattresses (it happens all the time in movies) it will be there if you do it again.
If we really are facing an environmental crisis, maybe we can innovate and engineer our way out of it, but to give us the time to do so (it would be great for instance if we had figured out what to do with all that nuclear waste we assumed we’d have a solution for by now) before we are all toast, I’d suggest we accept we all need to cut back a tad.
Doing it fairly and equitably of course, is where the real fun begins. At least DOING whatever we can is a good start. But perhaps accepting that we DON'T DO everything we need not is a reasonable thing to consider as well?'
I see our value now in trying to be a voice (hopefully of reason) for the middle ground:
'In the world of green, things are seldom black or white. Unless of course, you are in government, an activist... or the media.
For the rest of us poor slobs, weighing information and exhortation can be less than satisfying.
Things tend only to get published if they are at extremes. Or have extreme solutions.
Hence if you think everything is more tickedy boo than being doomsaid you are a climate denier, and if you think things may being erring on the dodgy and may need some allowances you are an ecosnob.
Here’s a bit of engineering for you. If one person takes a pebble from a dyke it will hold. If they keep on doing it likely will still hold as they are just one. But if they are joined by more and more it will eventually fail. And no technology can plug that gap if the combined efforts of individuals are determined to erode them.
Even those who demand freedoms have a responsibility to themselves, their fellows and the future to adjust their expectations and actions.
It’s a mess. Something has to be done. But what has been, is being and looks like being done doesn’t fill me with much confidence. All I see is battle lines. And while wars get fought little else happens and certainly nothing much positive. Meanwhile those who could be harnessed to help hunker down as the broadside sail overhead.
Maybe we have become too used to mobility, not just socially but also though necessity, especially for business. And here the policy makers have to figure out what they want and facilitate it.
But then the ‘its my right’ brigade need to meet somewhere (I’ll avoid halfway). I can visit my relatives in Singapore by means other than air, just as my Victorian ancestors did. If I am demanding the convenience and time and cost of an airplane that’s another matter. It isn’t the only method.
With an ever expanding and more affluent population, worldwide (China: fifty airports coming soon. They do of course have a child limitation policy to compensate, though it seems the rich can circumvent this. Was it ever thus), what does the author anticipate? Sorry if it takes her a bit longer to get to the opera or pop over to Verbier to catch the snow before it has gone for ever (there’s always a longer haul to Canada), but some poor sods walking across the Kalahari to find water, not factored into the carbon trading scheme, may feel certain restrictions of movement are in order.
Of course the government has seen what’s coming, but if yesterday's report is to believed and their solution is to tax households who add ‘value’ to homes via double glazing then we can see what their motivations and hence use as leaders really is.
Personally, I’d prefer to see about avoiding a Malthusian scenario by assuming that if something didn’t happen once before it won’t again. That’s a bit like jumping off a building and because you land on a truck full of mattresses (it happens all the time in movies) it will be there if you do it again.
If we really are facing an environmental crisis, maybe we can innovate and engineer our way out of it, but to give us the time to do so (it would be great for instance if we had figured out what to do with all that nuclear waste we assumed we’d have a solution for by now) before we are all toast, I’d suggest we accept we all need to cut back a tad.
Doing it fairly and equitably of course, is where the real fun begins. At least DOING whatever we can is a good start. But perhaps accepting that we DON'T DO everything we need not is a reasonable thing to consider as well?'
Sunday, January 07, 2007
The Gord giveth. And the Gord taketh it all back (and some)
A monstrous tax , if the article is true, says it all.
Already pointed out a few times, the fact that adding double glazing gets you penalised is about as insane as it gets.
"I've just up in to read this after a hard week's work followed by an equally hard, if satisfying, weekend of DIY to try and make more of my
home (including some more eco-additions). For which it seems I am now going to be further taxed!!!!!
So here's one not-very-well-off, very enviro-aware homeowner with a family to provide for, then self and spouse to get through retirement, who also happens to be a registered voter and knows what their vote is for.
I know who is not getting it. I just hope I can find someone in (or trying to get there) the lunatic asylum that is Westminster who can demonstrate they have enough of what it takes (common sense, sesne of duty, statespersonship, courage, no spin-doctor gatekeeper/mouthpieces, etc) to attract mine their way.
Small tip: you don't get a good grasp of what the average, normal, decent, hard-working people of Britain are managing on and think about the state of it all in a multi-millionaire's pad in Florida, cozying-up with the chattering classes on a Breakfast TV or Sunday paper political columnist's sofa, hugging a husky or selling on a gas-guzzler to keep on guzzling.
I just hope that the claim about this tax is not true - I went from 'Homes TO BE valued...' to ...WITH A VIEW to extending them in the UK... to 'a similar system is BEING PLANNED for England'.
Before I start boiling the oil: is it or isn't it going to be attempted? - as I am at the end of my tether with the whole sorry, unfireable, hypocritical, index-linked, golden handshaken lot of them.
And, sadly, what is true there are an awful lot now. I'm guessing it has at last sunk in they’ll need paying for. But THIS is not the way to try and solve that little self-created problem.
Trust me."
Already pointed out a few times, the fact that adding double glazing gets you penalised is about as insane as it gets.
"I've just up in to read this after a hard week's work followed by an equally hard, if satisfying, weekend of DIY to try and make more of my
home (including some more eco-additions). For which it seems I am now going to be further taxed!!!!!
So here's one not-very-well-off, very enviro-aware homeowner with a family to provide for, then self and spouse to get through retirement, who also happens to be a registered voter and knows what their vote is for.
I know who is not getting it. I just hope I can find someone in (or trying to get there) the lunatic asylum that is Westminster who can demonstrate they have enough of what it takes (common sense, sesne of duty, statespersonship, courage, no spin-doctor gatekeeper/mouthpieces, etc) to attract mine their way.
Small tip: you don't get a good grasp of what the average, normal, decent, hard-working people of Britain are managing on and think about the state of it all in a multi-millionaire's pad in Florida, cozying-up with the chattering classes on a Breakfast TV or Sunday paper political columnist's sofa, hugging a husky or selling on a gas-guzzler to keep on guzzling.
I just hope that the claim about this tax is not true - I went from 'Homes TO BE valued...' to ...WITH A VIEW to extending them in the UK... to 'a similar system is BEING PLANNED for England'.
Before I start boiling the oil: is it or isn't it going to be attempted? - as I am at the end of my tether with the whole sorry, unfireable, hypocritical, index-linked, golden handshaken lot of them.
And, sadly, what is true there are an awful lot now. I'm guessing it has at last sunk in they’ll need paying for. But THIS is not the way to try and solve that little self-created problem.
Trust me."
Friday, January 05, 2007
DMlemma
Asa creative person, especially one who had some fun and did some good (King of the Die-Cut!)with Direct Mail, I am always now on the horns of a dilemma when it comes to this as a medium of advertising.It's not looking too good for the industry: Industry braced for fresh backlash
Mind you, as I survey the DL sized kuk from banks, etc in my rubbish bin, I'm pretty sympathetic to the public's view.
But every so often a little bit of creative magic finds its way to being opened and read.
One such is this from Save the Children.
Basically, it's a boring brochure. But by making it a kid's exercise book and shooting holes I was hooked by it and the message. Which isn't a bad one either.
I doubt an email would have worked the same way. And I also assume that it did not cost a fortune to make this impact.
Year End Sail
This is another one that's a bit late, but still relevant: Santa's ship swaps gifts for garbage
But it also allows me to further test the links between our site articles, this blog and the newsletter.
Other than that, it rather makes you think... and want to weep.
But it also allows me to further test the links between our site articles, this blog and the newsletter.
Other than that, it rather makes you think... and want to weep.
An oldie, but a goodie
Long term blog partner Dave of Solarventi (see how sending us stuff brings its own re:ward) has kindly sent me this - Carbon trading for all will save the planet! - from last year.
He is old, I am old. The article is old. But we are all still gold!
It also lets me christen a new Blog category - CARB - which is where what I suspect a slew more 'let's make a killing out of green' tripe will appear more and more.
I have written to the author, as he is on the ball and I find his style more than in keeping with ours:
"I have just been forwarded your July posting (we may be slow, but we get there).
Bearing in mind how Sir Young and Thrusting is shaping up elsewhere in the environess, I found it fascinating, if a worry. I want to save the planet for my kids. Not end up making no difference except to some pols' careers and various interest groups' short, medium and long term cash cow rearing.
I'd be please if you could let me know when you publish any similar such analyses."
We may not want to beat them, but we can at least keep trying to knock them back onto the straight and narrow:)
He is old, I am old. The article is old. But we are all still gold!
It also lets me christen a new Blog category - CARB - which is where what I suspect a slew more 'let's make a killing out of green' tripe will appear more and more.
I have written to the author, as he is on the ball and I find his style more than in keeping with ours:
"I have just been forwarded your July posting (we may be slow, but we get there).
Bearing in mind how Sir Young and Thrusting is shaping up elsewhere in the environess, I found it fascinating, if a worry. I want to save the planet for my kids. Not end up making no difference except to some pols' careers and various interest groups' short, medium and long term cash cow rearing.
I'd be please if you could let me know when you publish any similar such analyses."
We may not want to beat them, but we can at least keep trying to knock them back onto the straight and narrow:)
If a tree gets recycled in a Council shredder, does the planet smile?
This is a 'just askin', because I don't know.
I just watched BBC lunchtime news, and at the end we had the obligatory and expected post-Xmas eco-pitch.
First up we had the tree man from the council, and then the Xmas card man from Woodland Trust giving us some free ads for Tescos, TKMaxx and WH Smiths, who will take back your old cards and 'use them' (not sure how) to plant trees. If I remember a recent Tesco ad right, they also get turned into loo paper. So no leaving any holly in them, now!
All better than nothing, I guess. Well, of course nothing is better than making, buying, sending, delivering and recycling cards that say 'Happy Xmas, How's Things' each year. I must did out my blog on how they really mean 'Hope you're still alive. We are', for all the useful information they ever hold.
We're on our 15th Xmas with out fake tree, bought in Singapore waaay before I decided to do right by the planet. And it will stay with us until the loft gives up.
Next year I intend to get to the bottom of the real vs. fake debate. No idea how it will turn out. On balance I figure letting a new one grow must be good for the carbon thing, but there is all the other stuff to factor in. Our fake comes down, goes up. That's it.
And it was the scene at the end as the vanilla with the mic and the worthies in their parkas watched a fir tree enter the maw of something like the 'Dip Dispenser' in 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?'. It was huge. And had a huge diesel that revved and belched and turned out wood chips. I just wonder whether that met a target for recycling at the expense of serving the environment
I just watched BBC lunchtime news, and at the end we had the obligatory and expected post-Xmas eco-pitch.
First up we had the tree man from the council, and then the Xmas card man from Woodland Trust giving us some free ads for Tescos, TKMaxx and WH Smiths, who will take back your old cards and 'use them' (not sure how) to plant trees. If I remember a recent Tesco ad right, they also get turned into loo paper. So no leaving any holly in them, now!
All better than nothing, I guess. Well, of course nothing is better than making, buying, sending, delivering and recycling cards that say 'Happy Xmas, How's Things' each year. I must did out my blog on how they really mean 'Hope you're still alive. We are', for all the useful information they ever hold.
We're on our 15th Xmas with out fake tree, bought in Singapore waaay before I decided to do right by the planet. And it will stay with us until the loft gives up.
Next year I intend to get to the bottom of the real vs. fake debate. No idea how it will turn out. On balance I figure letting a new one grow must be good for the carbon thing, but there is all the other stuff to factor in. Our fake comes down, goes up. That's it.
And it was the scene at the end as the vanilla with the mic and the worthies in their parkas watched a fir tree enter the maw of something like the 'Dip Dispenser' in 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?'. It was huge. And had a huge diesel that revved and belched and turned out wood chips. I just wonder whether that met a target for recycling at the expense of serving the environment
Mouths of Babes
There's a site called postsecret, where folk post 'confessions'.I only share this one because so far it is the one that's been used in every review I've ever read.
I wonder why?
A Mighty Wind
Nimbys can't be allowed to put a block on wind farms
Oh, really?
"Currently there is no turbine on my house roof. I got all excited by a B&Q ad that told me I could go green without going into the red, and with the initial endorsement of Newsnight's Ethical Man and one D. Cameron (though I believe both have now either decided against or been turned down), I charged ahead. And then stopped. The numbers didn't seem to add up. Not just the financial, but even the environmental ones. It's one thing to pay a bit more to save the planet, but quite another to pay a bit more to hasten its demise. I'm still checking, but when ROIs (on any measure) don't add up you have to question the value. I'm also assessing 'green' electricity. But now tempered by some legitimate questions.
A long time ago, I was granted a Civ. Eng degree, if only on the strict proviso I didn't try and build anything. So I ended up in advertising and, now, by way of karmic correction for the consequences of that career move, the cause of making the planet a better place for my ancestors. What this gives me is a fair grasp of science, with a slight sense of how the public respond to information, be it purveyed by government, experts, NGOs, the media, etc.
And to repeat the clichés trotted out before and here, what is amazing is the amount of hot air and/or wind being generated to so little effect. Almost without exception, we have 'them vs. us’ lines being drawn, just as they are with other enviro-issues, such as 4x4s.
The article author bears some responsibility. I rather view 'Nimbys' as a pejorative right away, closely followed by '...can't be allowed...' as presumptuous. The political leanings of councils is noted, but in a democracy they can be seen to reflect the wishes of those who voted for them.
"Every year, wind energy gets closer to profitability" is interesting. While profitability is one thing, what about enviro-ROI? Charge what you like to make it make money, but the eco-cost stays the same, especially if no one can afford to use its 'product' and stays away. It becomes a white elephant.
Labour should not feel smug if the things don't work on the bases they are supposed to do. It merely means they have gone for an easy option for short-term political gain.
And so I turn to the responses for enlightenment. Few moved my knowledge ahead.
"hoodlight - So close to a fact, but no more use than Ms. T's. I would love to see it attributed.
Rumplestiltskin - No answer to the question there then. As noted.
Swoosh - No facts there, either.
NickRouse - some good 'pro' stuff there, ta. I shall enjoy checking this out (sadly, I have found even facts to be subject to rather huge levels of interpretation/substantiation) and cross fingers.
addicksboy - Valid pros and cons, ta.
NevNumbat - I was aware of these, though they may be addressed, at least as e-ROI by the claims made in support of the cost of build and maintenance over lifespan vs. benefits of generation. I'd have to question the 'waste' argument, sorry.
tomper - A stat often ignored. And with finite earth upon which to stand, where does an ever-increasing population suggest as an end point?
redsquare - Another near fact. Any attribution to test reliability and assess capacity/capability.
MalachiConstant - If you would care to get in touch via http://www.junkk.com, I would value your contribution and substantiation behind such claims for an attempt I am making to at least state the pros and the cons to help people decide, free of political, commercial or sociological bias.
snoepje - A very good point. But that simple?
shlick - An equally good point, and in part may be tied to the one before. Ignoring enviro and £-ROI's, can a windmill run our economy and expanding population?
ColvilleAndersen - I just ask, because I don't know (in the process of finding out), but what is the population of Denmark, and what is the ratio of wind available to power the demands of their economy?
Bonzaboy - The information exchanged here is certainly making a difference to me, and I intend it to make one to others. As to leaving it to the pols... yes, do all you suggest. As well.
contractor000 - The same offer applies to you as to your learned colleague. While citing qualifications helps validate opinions, I would hope that we can still allow those with training in assessing facts to stray into other areas. Otherwise we end up with a MoMo (Monckton/Monbiot) spat about who is more qualified to speak on a subject and/or for us mere mortals.
xhenry - Covered, but well worth repeating.
Personally, I think they can be structures of rare beauty, when placed with care. And if they provide 'free' power after payback that’s even better.
But for anything to be so pushed down our throats by the 'green is good no matter what, and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi' brigade, they also need to be proven as delivering environmentally. Which I do not see from this article, and still have several reasons to doubt.
Just the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."
Oh, really?
"Currently there is no turbine on my house roof. I got all excited by a B&Q ad that told me I could go green without going into the red, and with the initial endorsement of Newsnight's Ethical Man and one D. Cameron (though I believe both have now either decided against or been turned down), I charged ahead. And then stopped. The numbers didn't seem to add up. Not just the financial, but even the environmental ones. It's one thing to pay a bit more to save the planet, but quite another to pay a bit more to hasten its demise. I'm still checking, but when ROIs (on any measure) don't add up you have to question the value. I'm also assessing 'green' electricity. But now tempered by some legitimate questions.
A long time ago, I was granted a Civ. Eng degree, if only on the strict proviso I didn't try and build anything. So I ended up in advertising and, now, by way of karmic correction for the consequences of that career move, the cause of making the planet a better place for my ancestors. What this gives me is a fair grasp of science, with a slight sense of how the public respond to information, be it purveyed by government, experts, NGOs, the media, etc.
And to repeat the clichés trotted out before and here, what is amazing is the amount of hot air and/or wind being generated to so little effect. Almost without exception, we have 'them vs. us’ lines being drawn, just as they are with other enviro-issues, such as 4x4s.
The article author bears some responsibility. I rather view 'Nimbys' as a pejorative right away, closely followed by '...can't be allowed...' as presumptuous. The political leanings of councils is noted, but in a democracy they can be seen to reflect the wishes of those who voted for them.
"Every year, wind energy gets closer to profitability" is interesting. While profitability is one thing, what about enviro-ROI? Charge what you like to make it make money, but the eco-cost stays the same, especially if no one can afford to use its 'product' and stays away. It becomes a white elephant.
Labour should not feel smug if the things don't work on the bases they are supposed to do. It merely means they have gone for an easy option for short-term political gain.
And so I turn to the responses for enlightenment. Few moved my knowledge ahead.
"hoodlight - So close to a fact, but no more use than Ms. T's. I would love to see it attributed.
Rumplestiltskin - No answer to the question there then. As noted.
Swoosh - No facts there, either.
NickRouse - some good 'pro' stuff there, ta. I shall enjoy checking this out (sadly, I have found even facts to be subject to rather huge levels of interpretation/substantiation) and cross fingers.
addicksboy - Valid pros and cons, ta.
NevNumbat - I was aware of these, though they may be addressed, at least as e-ROI by the claims made in support of the cost of build and maintenance over lifespan vs. benefits of generation. I'd have to question the 'waste' argument, sorry.
tomper - A stat often ignored. And with finite earth upon which to stand, where does an ever-increasing population suggest as an end point?
redsquare - Another near fact. Any attribution to test reliability and assess capacity/capability.
MalachiConstant - If you would care to get in touch via http://www.junkk.com, I would value your contribution and substantiation behind such claims for an attempt I am making to at least state the pros and the cons to help people decide, free of political, commercial or sociological bias.
snoepje - A very good point. But that simple?
shlick - An equally good point, and in part may be tied to the one before. Ignoring enviro and £-ROI's, can a windmill run our economy and expanding population?
ColvilleAndersen - I just ask, because I don't know (in the process of finding out), but what is the population of Denmark, and what is the ratio of wind available to power the demands of their economy?
Bonzaboy - The information exchanged here is certainly making a difference to me, and I intend it to make one to others. As to leaving it to the pols... yes, do all you suggest. As well.
contractor000 - The same offer applies to you as to your learned colleague. While citing qualifications helps validate opinions, I would hope that we can still allow those with training in assessing facts to stray into other areas. Otherwise we end up with a MoMo (Monckton/Monbiot) spat about who is more qualified to speak on a subject and/or for us mere mortals.
xhenry - Covered, but well worth repeating.
Personally, I think they can be structures of rare beauty, when placed with care. And if they provide 'free' power after payback that’s even better.
But for anything to be so pushed down our throats by the 'green is good no matter what, and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi' brigade, they also need to be proven as delivering environmentally. Which I do not see from this article, and still have several reasons to doubt.
Just the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Wonder what you can recycle in Boreham Wood
And I don't mean timber!When I was Creative Director of my agency, we isntituted a thing called the Creative Review Commitee (CRC), whereby, David Brent-wise (cue holding up two fingers as in apostrophes), 'nothing is a bad idea'.
Well, of course there is a lot that can be, how do you say, 'not necessarily a good idea', either. And that was where the CRC was used as a first line of defecne to shoot down the dire, the obvious, the silly, the trite, the cliched, the boring and, hand in hand with this, the really bad puns.
Out they'd trot, we'd laugh, say no and move on to create the good, make a difference concepts that communicate and effect a useful result.
So seeing money my taxes contributed to (then given (minus cut) to the EU to give back (minus cut) to HMG to give (minus cut) to a Quango NGO to give to (minus cut) and agency to create and give to (minus cut) the media) used for such tripe is... a bother.
At best I, who has a sliver of interest in all this, may say 'Huh?, but what exactly is yer average SKY mag reader going to do? Drive from Reading to Cardiff to recycle their cards?
I love posters, and banner ads. You have to get a full story and message across in eight words or less.
My views on blowing all this dosh to tell people to recycle and what they can recycle are well known. But to do it this badly is a real waste. Especially when it's so self-serving, as the only direction to ad is pointing is at the website, and the stats on the website will be used to justify the spend.
Meanwhile, a lot of great little initiatives (ours included) are either not being funded or finding themselves competed with by those staked to aid us. Nuts.
Just make sure you wash them
Nothing wrong with this ad at all. It's very... 'green'But what does 'British Grown' mean, environmentally?
Especially when they may or may not get shipped to another country to be packed. And is grown in a heated bubble 400 miles away really that good?
That's the trouble with greenwashing. What you have done, or do elsewhere can stain the rest.
'Up to' their old tricks?
My eye was caught by this ad, which offers 28 miles extra per tank, which is almost 10% of mine, or £5.What it doesn't say is how many p/litre extra we're talking, but I guess at that gain it's worth doing the maths.
But what, exactly, and without any asterisks, does 'up to' mean?
So much to hear. So little to say.
I would love someone to explain what the point is to this news snippet.Other than the choice 'efforts' (as in, 'nothing need come of it, but we can say we tried... and issued a PR'), did the publication in question ponder for a moment asking where or how this could take place, if it does at all?
Everyone's (still) talking at me, but I can't (be bothered to listen, let alone) hear a(ny more) word(s) they're saying (...again)
It's the new year!
Let's talk conferences. Not just ways to meet and talk, but also make money meeting and talking. As to actually doing anything, well...
Sorry, I'm jaded.
Here's the first of what will be many, but it's a goodie:
BP, Ford, Ben & Jerry's, Stop Climate Chaos, and others talking climate change 7-8 March in London
Dear Colleague,
Everyone is talking - if not going - carbon neutral. At least that's the way it seems. "Carbon neutral" was recently named Word [or two words, or phrase, shouldn't that be?] of the Year [that, or rather they, say a lot right there] for 2006 by The New Oxford American Dictionary.
Looking back, last year may end up remembered as the year that climate change went "mainstream," catapulted to the spotlight by major media outlets around the globe. And if 2006 was the Year of acknowledging climate change, it's time to make 2007 the Year of communicating AND acting on climate change.
Yaaaay, and this will cost me...how much?
I got to '...and to take advantage of the £100 early registration discount.' and gave up. That means they want at least £1k to talk some more.
Talk... about a waste.
Let's talk conferences. Not just ways to meet and talk, but also make money meeting and talking. As to actually doing anything, well...
Sorry, I'm jaded.
Here's the first of what will be many, but it's a goodie:
BP, Ford, Ben & Jerry's, Stop Climate Chaos, and others talking climate change 7-8 March in London
Dear Colleague,
Everyone is talking - if not going - carbon neutral. At least that's the way it seems. "Carbon neutral" was recently named Word [or two words, or phrase, shouldn't that be?] of the Year [that, or rather they, say a lot right there] for 2006 by The New Oxford American Dictionary.
Looking back, last year may end up remembered as the year that climate change went "mainstream," catapulted to the spotlight by major media outlets around the globe. And if 2006 was the Year of acknowledging climate change, it's time to make 2007 the Year of communicating AND acting on climate change.
Yaaaay, and this will cost me...how much?
I got to '...and to take advantage of the £100 early registration discount.' and gave up. That means they want at least £1k to talk some more.
Talk... about a waste.
Frying pan. Fire. No food.
Go green, Farmer Giles
"As with so many things in environmental debates, I confess to suffering from a slight lack of objective, factual information to help me follow debates.
One issue involving the above that has generated concerns for me surrounds so-called bio-fuels.
I have a vision of, and hence problem with the notion of driving, carbon-neutrally, through our green (or whatever colour bio-fuel crops are) and pleasant land, trying to find something locally-produced to eat. Should we not be encouraging moves towards less transport and more local production of essentials?
While it may work for Brazil (on the assumption they haven't whacked down green-lung rain forests to do so), they have a tad more space to play with. Do we?
Given the option, I'd prefer to stick with food."
"As with so many things in environmental debates, I confess to suffering from a slight lack of objective, factual information to help me follow debates.
One issue involving the above that has generated concerns for me surrounds so-called bio-fuels.
I have a vision of, and hence problem with the notion of driving, carbon-neutrally, through our green (or whatever colour bio-fuel crops are) and pleasant land, trying to find something locally-produced to eat. Should we not be encouraging moves towards less transport and more local production of essentials?
While it may work for Brazil (on the assumption they haven't whacked down green-lung rain forests to do so), they have a tad more space to play with. Do we?
Given the option, I'd prefer to stick with food."
It's a gas, gas, gas
Couldn't resist: An Ill Wind
"For my sins, I once did two years of a vet degree, before deciding it was nothing like James Herriot and gave up. However, having witnessed my tutor stick a pipe in a heifer's exhaust and generate a jet of flame, I even then wondered if this could be harnessed (what does methane produce on combustion... I must find out. Carbon dioxide I bet), much like I wondered about those flames at oil refineries.
Meanwhile, back on the farm, if methane is 25 times more onerous a greenhouse gas to carbon dioxide, and the rest of the stats that will be bandied about (stated as fact, rebutted, climate denied, accused of being in the pay of big oil, accused of shoring up charity directors' pension funds, etc) approximate to something significant, then while it originates in humour it should be taken seriously.
I have hence decided to add a section to my website http://www.junkk.com on matters effluent, and it shall be called 'Pooh Corner'. It should entertain my ten-year-olds at least, but if they get some kind of message after the Beavis & Butthead snickers subside, it will be worth doing.
For what it's worth, a while ago I noted a small piece about some UK researchers, I think in Scotland, who had made serious progress on a feed that did in fact reduce the toots and, as mentioned above, make for a better 'product'. I’ll dig it out and add it.
Maybe we'll soon be seeing less of the 'Angus' burgers being advert, but more where the 'g' - standing for 'green', is silent?"
"For my sins, I once did two years of a vet degree, before deciding it was nothing like James Herriot and gave up. However, having witnessed my tutor stick a pipe in a heifer's exhaust and generate a jet of flame, I even then wondered if this could be harnessed (what does methane produce on combustion... I must find out. Carbon dioxide I bet), much like I wondered about those flames at oil refineries.
Meanwhile, back on the farm, if methane is 25 times more onerous a greenhouse gas to carbon dioxide, and the rest of the stats that will be bandied about (stated as fact, rebutted, climate denied, accused of being in the pay of big oil, accused of shoring up charity directors' pension funds, etc) approximate to something significant, then while it originates in humour it should be taken seriously.
I have hence decided to add a section to my website http://www.junkk.com on matters effluent, and it shall be called 'Pooh Corner'. It should entertain my ten-year-olds at least, but if they get some kind of message after the Beavis & Butthead snickers subside, it will be worth doing.
For what it's worth, a while ago I noted a small piece about some UK researchers, I think in Scotland, who had made serious progress on a feed that did in fact reduce the toots and, as mentioned above, make for a better 'product'. I’ll dig it out and add it.
Maybe we'll soon be seeing less of the 'Angus' burgers being advert, but more where the 'g' - standing for 'green', is silent?"
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Trust me, I'm a Pol trying to save my bac.. the planet.
The enemy of my enemy...?
Who would have thought I'd ever side with Mr. O'Leary?
But with this - Fight over Brown’s ‘green’ levy - I have.
" am no great fan of Mr. O'Leary or his airline, but good luck to him.
Retroactive legislation is the thin end of a very steep wedge.
"... the tax, which the Chancellor claims will benefit the environment, will be applied to any passenger with a current booking made before the announcement was made."
Good claim. How, exactly, will this benefit the environment? The flight is taking place anyway. EasyJet may considering barring those who refuse (who would/can?) and that may mean a few kg less to lift, but the actual environmental impact is the same. Just some extra money going to... what, exactly?
Yes, ways must be found to resolve the environmental impact of travelling, and soon, but this will just create a 'them and us' divide which will make conversion of opinion and behaviours that much more difficult."
Just last night I was watching TV and in one break there were two ads for cereals. One with actor Ray Winstone talking about the nanny state, and the other with a load of 'official robots' trying to stop you eating tasty food. The industry and the government going to head to head, with the latter using our money to wage it so they can play with the ad agencies.
Pathetic.
ADDENDA:
Let's get this straight. I don't think the existence, financial incentives and hence proliferation of a mjaor greenhouse gas industry can be a good thing.
What I don't like is when 'green' is used to 'bash and tax' without thought, or only with a view to making a money and not a difference.
Knock yourselves out trying to figure who is coming out of this well:
BBC - Airlines savaged over environment
Reuters - Minister criticises Ryanair on emissions
Guardian - Labour targets airlines over carbon emissions
Guardian - Rise of low-cost flights comes at high price
Telegraph - Virgin holds talks on low-cost long-haul flights
Telegraph - Ryanair 'unacceptable face of capitalism'
Who would have thought I'd ever side with Mr. O'Leary?
But with this - Fight over Brown’s ‘green’ levy - I have.
" am no great fan of Mr. O'Leary or his airline, but good luck to him.
Retroactive legislation is the thin end of a very steep wedge.
"... the tax, which the Chancellor claims will benefit the environment, will be applied to any passenger with a current booking made before the announcement was made."
Good claim. How, exactly, will this benefit the environment? The flight is taking place anyway. EasyJet may considering barring those who refuse (who would/can?) and that may mean a few kg less to lift, but the actual environmental impact is the same. Just some extra money going to... what, exactly?
Yes, ways must be found to resolve the environmental impact of travelling, and soon, but this will just create a 'them and us' divide which will make conversion of opinion and behaviours that much more difficult."
Just last night I was watching TV and in one break there were two ads for cereals. One with actor Ray Winstone talking about the nanny state, and the other with a load of 'official robots' trying to stop you eating tasty food. The industry and the government going to head to head, with the latter using our money to wage it so they can play with the ad agencies.
Pathetic.
ADDENDA:
Let's get this straight. I don't think the existence, financial incentives and hence proliferation of a mjaor greenhouse gas industry can be a good thing.
What I don't like is when 'green' is used to 'bash and tax' without thought, or only with a view to making a money and not a difference.
Knock yourselves out trying to figure who is coming out of this well:
BBC - Airlines savaged over environment
Reuters - Minister criticises Ryanair on emissions
Guardian - Labour targets airlines over carbon emissions
Guardian - Rise of low-cost flights comes at high price
Telegraph - Virgin holds talks on low-cost long-haul flights
Telegraph - Ryanair 'unacceptable face of capitalism'
Wild of the call
Cameron's 'buy British food' call
My take:
"A clear way to see what you are eating, where it came from and how it gets to you?
Logical. Simple. Effective.
Let's see when and if it ever happens, and how 'the system' makes it into an unworkable monster."
So far, so talk. I await with interest how any of this gets translated, if ever, into action.
A less thrilled view from Janet Street Porter
My take:
"A clear way to see what you are eating, where it came from and how it gets to you?
Logical. Simple. Effective.
Let's see when and if it ever happens, and how 'the system' makes it into an unworkable monster."
So far, so talk. I await with interest how any of this gets translated, if ever, into action.
A less thrilled view from Janet Street Porter
Chuffed
"Are we being priced off the trains?"
Good one. But I shall answer, with an equally straight face: Yes; and have been for ages. This just makes things even worse.
No matter what one's environmental commitment, when you are faced with a service of limited flexibility and/or reliability, £25 for a spontaneously-committed tank of petrol - and the option of coming straight home rush hour, mid-late evening or early morning if needs be - looks pretty good vs. being forced to wait 'til 7.30pm to return and then risk being stranded at a mid-West connection point, all requiring paying a month in advance at £80. Plus £4 for a tube ride once there, I now gather!
But in the name of Green, why do I suspect that the option to use the train will not be made more attractive, but the alternatives will simply be penalised even more? Talk about a drag and drop menu for disaster.
Thank heavens I work from home, but sadly, and my heart goes out to those who have to do it daily, one will always need to travel.
Indy: Planes, trains, and the road to ruin
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Fix in the mix
As part of my daily trawl I try to take in a broad spread of 'leanings', media-editorial-wise. And it can be a hoot to see how some perceptions get shaped.
Take this: Pro-hunting lobby group accused of fixing poll
For a start I found it fun that they were accused of 'fixing' in the headline, but this got downgraded in copy to 'distorting'.
And I loved that there were "suspicions that there was an organised campaign at work", bearing in mind our dealings with the BBC on matters of voting. What, exactly, is the point of such a poll, if you are going to worry about the result of those who care enough to vote investing the time and/or money in distorting the result you want?
It's also worth seeing how others treated the same piece of slooooow news:
THE INDEPENDENT
Today listeners have voted to scrap the law banning fox hunting.
DAILY TELEGRAPH
Today listeners have voted to scrap the law banning fox hunting.
THE TIMES
More than half the voters in a Today programme poll wanted to abolish
the law banning fox hunting.
DAILY MAIL
Hunt supporters have swamped a Today poll to discover the law most
people want scrapped.
Take this: Pro-hunting lobby group accused of fixing poll
For a start I found it fun that they were accused of 'fixing' in the headline, but this got downgraded in copy to 'distorting'.
And I loved that there were "suspicions that there was an organised campaign at work", bearing in mind our dealings with the BBC on matters of voting. What, exactly, is the point of such a poll, if you are going to worry about the result of those who care enough to vote investing the time and/or money in distorting the result you want?
It's also worth seeing how others treated the same piece of slooooow news:
THE INDEPENDENT
Today listeners have voted to scrap the law banning fox hunting.
DAILY TELEGRAPH
Today listeners have voted to scrap the law banning fox hunting.
THE TIMES
More than half the voters in a Today programme poll wanted to abolish
the law banning fox hunting.
DAILY MAIL
Hunt supporters have swamped a Today poll to discover the law most
people want scrapped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)